a guide to self-evaluation for community justice in scotland · 2016-12-07 · 6 a guide to...

A guide to self-evaluation for community justice in ScotlandHow well are we improving the life chances and outcomes of those with lived experience of community justice in Scotland?

A guide to self-evaluation for community justice in Scotland

1. Introduction 4

2. Evaluating community justice using quality indicators 7

3. The quality indicator model 9

4. The quality indicators with illustrations 10

5. Appendix 1: the six point scale 54

6. Appendix 2: terms and definitions 56

The Care Inspectorate the official body responsible for inspecting standards of care in

Scotland. It regulates and inspects care services to make sure they meet the right standards.

It also carries out joint inspections with other regulators to check how well different

organisations in local areasare working to support adults and children. It helps ensure

social work, including criminal justice social work, meets high standards.

.

A guide to self-evaluation for community justice in Scotland 3

Contents

4 A guide to self-evaluation for community justice in Scotland

Introduction

The Scottish Government’s vision for community justice is that Scotland is a safer, fairer and more inclusive nation where we:• preventandreducefurtheroffendingbyaddressingitsunderlyingcauses• safelyandeffectivelymanageandsupportthosewhohavecommittedoffencestohelp

them reintegrate into the community and realise their potential for the benefit of all citizens.

The National Strategy for Community Justice provides the strategic vision and the Outcomes, Performance and Improvement (OPI) Framework sets out what is required, together with tools to support the improvement required to achieve this vision. The new body, Community Justice Scotland, will provide leadership and professional assurance to Scottish Ministers on community justice in Scotland. The community justice model will enable partners to collaboratively address priority areas through a joint approach that is both outcomes focused and evidence-based. The statutory community justice partners are:• localauthorities• healthboards• PoliceScotland• ScottishFireandRescueService(SFRS)• SkillsDevelopmentScotland(SDS)• integrationjointboards(IJBs)• ScottishCourtsandTribunalsService(SCTS)and;• ScottishMinisters(inpractice,theScottishPrisonService,theCrownOfficeandProcurator

FiscalService).

The Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 provides the legislative background to which themodeloperates.Particularreferenceismadewithinlegislationtotheroleofthethirdsector within community justice in Scotland.

AspartofthedevelopmentoftheOPIFramework,theScottishGovernmentcommissionedthe Care Inspectorate to develop a guide to self-evaluation that could be used by partners to help in their efforts to strive for continuous improvement and excellence in services. As anindependent,non-departmentalpublicbody(NDPB),theCareInspectorateiswellplacedto develop the guide to self-evaluation. This would also be the model used for any future scrutiny and inspection of community justice. Using the quality indicators reinforces the partnershipbetweeninternalandexternalevaluationofservices.Below,wehaveoutlinedthe vision and priorities of the national strategy and show the link to quality indicators. It is important to note there will be an inter-relationship between the quality indicators as they impact and affect each other.

http://www.gov.scot/communityjusticestrategy

http://www.gov.scot/communityjusticestrategy

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/10/pdfs/asp_20160010_en.pdf

http://www.legisaltion.gov.uk/asp/2016/contents/enacted


The Scottish Government vision for community justice is that:

Scotland is a safer, fairer and more inclusive nation where we:• preventandreduceoffendingbyaddressingitsunderlyingcauses;and(Quality Indicator

1.1)• safelyandeffectivelymanageandsupportthosewhohavecommittedoffencestohelp

them reintegrate into the community and realise their potential for the benefit of all citizens (Quality Indicator 1.1)

The vision is underpinned by the following principles.

• Peoplemustbeheldtoaccountfortheiroffences,inawaythatrecognisestheimpacton victims of crime and is mindful of risks to the public, while being proportionate and effective in preventing and reducing further offending (Quality Indicator 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)

• Re-integratingthosewhohavecommittedoffencesintothecommunityandhelpingthem to realise their potential will create a safer and fairer society for all (Quality Indicator 2.1, 4.1, 5.3)

• Everyinterventionshouldmaximiseopportunitiesforpreventingandreducingoffendingas early as possible, before problems escalate (Quality Indicator 1.1, 5.1)

• Communityjusticeoutcomescannotbeimprovedbyonestakeholderalone.Wemustwork in partnership to address these complex issues (Quality Indicator 1.1, 3.1, 6.2, 6.4, 8.1, 8.2, 9.2, 9.4)

• Informedcommunitieswhoparticipateincommunityjusticewillleadtomoreeffectiveservices and policies with greater legitimacy (Quality Indicator 4.1, 6.3)

• Highquality,person-centredandcollaborativeservicesshouldbeavailabletoaddressthe needs of those who have committed offences, their families, and victims of crime (Quality Indicator 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 7.1)

This will be delivered by prioritising action in the following areas.

• Improvedcommunityunderstandingandparticipation(Quality Indicator 3.1, 6.3)• Strategicplanningandpartnershipworking(Quality Indicator 6.1, 6.2, 8.3, 9.4)• Effectiveuseofevidence-basedinterventions(Quality Indicator 5.3 and 5.2)• Equalaccesstoservices(Quality Indicator 5.1)

Furthermorethequalityindicatorslinktothesetofcommunityjusticecommonoutcomes,referredtoasthe‘nationally-determinedoutcomes’intheCommunityJustice(Scotland)Act2016,asstatedwithintheOPIFramework.

ThefourstructuraloutcomeswithintheOPIFrameworkarecoveredinthefourpriorityareasabove. The three person-centric outcomes and links to the quality indicators are:• Lifechancesareimprovedthroughneeds,includinghealth,financialinclusion,housing

and safety being addressed (Quality Indicator 1.1)


• Peopledeveloppositiverelationshipsandmoreopportunitiestoparticipateandcontributethrough education, employment and leisure activities (Quality Indicator 1.1)

• Individualsresilienceandcapacityforchangeandself-managementareenhanced(Quality Indicator 1.1)

The guide to self-evaluation does not replace existing approaches to self-evaluation and qualityimprovementthatarealreadyembedded.Rather,itisdesignedtoenabletheevaluations and evidence from a range of self-evaluation activity to be brought together. Collaboration was at the heart of developing the guide, to ensure all partners had the opportunity to shape and influence its content. The Care Inspectorate offered a briefing session on self-evaluation across all 32 local authority areas and this was taken up in nearly half. A staff survey was circulated to all 32 local area strategic/transitional groups, statutory partners and third sector organisations to provide the opportunity for staff to provide their viewonthecontentoftheself-evaluationguide,wehad335responses.Weheldfocusgroups with people who had lived experience of community justice, including those in the community and custody, women and young people, and families of those who had experience of the community justice system. In total, we spoke to 107 people who were able to tell us what they felt was important for us to consider. Early on, we established a reference group, with representatives from nearly all the statutory partners and the third sector. This group has been key to ensuring strong collaboration in developing this guide.

Appendix 2 gives the terms we use and their definitions, to help clear understanding.


Evaluating community justice using quality indicators

This guide provides a range of quality indicators to support self-evaluation that leads to improvement in community justice. This guide is primarily for statutory partners and third sector partners with strategic responsibility for the planning, delivery and evaluation of services forthosecomingundertheauspicesofcommunityjusticeinScotland.Whenwerefertopartnerswithintheguidewemeanallstatutorypartnersandthirdsectorpartners.Howeverpartners can and should also consider and include non-statutory partners involved in community justice in local areas, as appropriate.

This guide has been developed to be used as a partnership approach to undertaking self-evaluation.Byusingitinthisway,partnerswillensurethat,individuallyandcollectively,they consider how they contribute to the delivery of community justice and continuous improvement.Werecognisethatdifferentpartnersholddifferentanduniqueroles,manyofwhich are wider than community justice, which will influence how they approach the quality indicators. Taking a whole partnership approach will result in a higher quality self-evaluation and activity as a result of this.

Self-evaluation is central to continuous improvement. It is not meant to be a mechanistic or bureaucratic process. This guide aims to help partners reflect on how well they are doing and how they can improve further. The quality indicators are designed to help partners to:• reflectuponpracticeandidentifyareasforimprovement• recognisewhatworkisbeingdonethatishavingapositiveimpactonthosewhohave

lived experience of community justice• identifywherequalityneedstobemaintained,whereimprovementisneededandwhere

partners should be working towards achieving excellence• informstakeholdersaboutthequalityofservices.

Self-evaluation for improvement broadly focuses on answering three key questions.

How good are we now?

This question should help partners identify strengths within and across service delivery and begin to consider areas for improvement.

How do we know?

In considering this question, services should be gathering evidence and developing auditing processes that illustrate how well the lives of those with lived experience of community justice are improving. There are a number of sources of evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, which can inform partners and services about the quality of their work.


How good can we be?

This question should help partners take forward what they have found so far and develop a set of clear and tangible priorities for improvement.

The national body Community Justice Scotland will have an interest in how well partners across the 32 local authority areas are using the self-evaluation guide.

Forthefirsttime,eightstatutorypartnersandthirdsectorbodiesarecomingtogetherwiththe shared responsibility to plan and deliver services under the auspices of community justice. This guide can be used for self-evaluation in both the short- and long-term and is useful for partners as they grow and develop together. It is important to recognise that because of the infancy of many aspects of the community justice model, evaluations made against thequalityindicatorsreflectthis.Wehavecalledthis‘managingexpectations’.Thisistoensure that those involved in community justice at all levels recognise that while the guide to self-evaluation is to help partners strive for excellence, achieving it may take some time. It is important that in using the guide a positive balance is struck between delivering high quality planning and services and recognising that some quality indicators may take longer to achieve higher evaluations.

To help you use the guide and undertake self-evaluation in the most beneficial and effective way, click here for useful information and quick tips. You will find answers to some of the questionsyoumayhaveabout:howtobestapproachself-evaluationusingtheguide;whatdoesevidencelooklikeand;howdoesthisguidelinkwiththeOPIFramework.

http://www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/News/Useful-information-and-quick-tips-for-using-the-self-eval-guide.pdf


Quality Indicator Model The framework of quality indicators for improving community justice services in Scotland

What key outcomes have we achieved?

How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders?

How good is our delivery of services for those involved in community justice?

How good is our operational management?

How good is our leadership?

1. Key performance outcomes

2. Impact on people who have committed offences, their families and victims

5.Deliveryofkeyprocesses

6.Policy,servicedevelopment and planning

9.Leadershipanddirection

1.1 Improving the life chances and outcomes of those with lived experience of community justice

2.1 Impact on people who have committed offences

2.2 Impact on victims

2.3 Impact on families

5.1 Providinghelpand support when it is needed

5.2 Assessing and responding to risk and need

5.3Planningandproviding effective intervention

5.4 Involving people who have committed offences and their families

6.1Policies,proceduresand legal measures

6.2Planninganddelivering services in a collaborative way

6.3Participationof those who have committed offences, their families, victims and other stakeholders 6.4Performancemanagement and quality assurance

9.1 Vision, values and aims

9.2Leadershipofstrategy and direction

9.3Leadershipofpeople

9.4 Leadershipofimprovement and change

3. Impact on staff 7. Management and support of staff

3.1 Impact on staff 7.1 Staff training and development, and joint working

4. Impact on the communities

8.Partnershipandresources

4.1 Impact on the community

8.1 Effective use and management of resources

8.2 Commissioning arrangements

8.3 Securing improvement through self evaluation

10.Whatisourcapacityforimprovement?

Overalljudgementbasedonanevaluationoftheframeworkofqualityindicators


What key outcomes have we achieved?1. Key performance outcomes

1.1 Improving the life chances and outcomes of those with lived experience of community justice

Themes

• Howwellcanwedemonstrateweareimprovingtrendsthroughpreventionandearlyintervention?

• Howwellcanwedemonstrateimprovementinperformanceoftheperson-centredoutcomes?

Key features

This quality indicator relates to demonstrable improvements that partners make in improving the life chances and outcomes of people with lived experience of community justice. It considers the extent to which partners are able to show they are successfully tackling the underlying causes of crime to reduce further offending and in doing so, the lives of those involved and affected by crime are improving. It is about demonstrating that partners are successfully tackling inequalities and delivering effective prevention and early intervention before problems escalate. It focuses on the tangible results in improving the life chances of people who have committed offences. It also focuses on the ability of partners to demonstrate success through performance against the person-centred outcomes as defined intheOPIFramework,aswellaslocallydeterminedoutcomes.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationThrough our up to date local community justice needs assessment we are able to identify the needs and gaps in services. Wearemakingprogressintargetingoursupport services towards early intervention and prevention before problems escalate. Wehavedevelopedmechanismstoenable us to identify local priorities and targets with measures that enable us to demonstrateeffectiveness.Weareableto evidence improving trends in the wellbeing of people with lived experience ofcommunityjustice.Wearesuccessfullytackling issues of inequality alongside widercommunityplanningpartners.Wehave targeted our efforts towards specific groups of people who have committed offences, ensuring that specific groups such as victims, women and young people are considered.

Wehavenotyetstartedtouseourcommunity justice needs assessment to help us identify gaps and set local priorities and targets for improvement. Wehavemadeverylimitedprogressintargeting our services to early intervention andprevention.Wecannotthereforedemonstrate that we have effective measures in place that will enable us to show improving trends in the wellbeing of those with lived experience of community justiceovertime.Wearenotyetabletodemonstrate how well we are tackling issues and inequality alongside other communityplanningpartners.Ourapproach to improving outcomes and life chances has not taken account of the different factors of specific groups of those with lived experience of community justice.

Wehaveestablishedaclearmechanismand process to enable us to report upon theperson-centredoutcomes.Wecandemonstrate improving trends on the person-centred outcomes outlined within theOPIFramework.Weareabletoclearly explain why we have not reported on some indicators and provide strong reporting evidence on methods and sources used to support our progress over time.

Wehavenotyetdevelopedaclearmechanism by which to gather robust evidence to report upon the person-centredoutcomes.Wearenotabletodemonstrate improving trends against theperson-centredoutcomes.Wedonotreport against some indicators and are unable to provide a clear rationale on why this is the case.


How well do we meet the needs of our stakeholders?2. Impact on those who have committed offences, their families and victims

2.1 Impact on those who have committed offences

Themes

• Towhatextentdopeoplewhohavecommittedoffencesfeeltheirlifechanceshaveimprovedasaresultofservicesprovided?

• Towhatextentdopeoplewhohavecommittedoffencesreporthelpwasreceivedattherighttime?

• Towhatextentdopeoplewhohavecommittedoffencesfeelsupported?

Key features

This indicator focuses on the impact services across the community justice system are making in the lives of those who have committed offences. It focuses on the difference services are making in their lives and how this is perceived by those in receipt of services. It considers the extent to which services have been able to positively impact on desistance, behaviour and needs.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWecandemonstratethatpeoplewhohavecommitted offences have a strong sense that, through their experience of receiving services at different stages in their journey, their needs have been met, their wellbeing improved and risks reduced. They consider their life chances have improved as a result of these experiences and are able to demonstrate positive changes in attitude. They are able to reflect on why their circumstances have improved and have developed the ability to make better choices and sustain improvement in their wellbeing and desistance over time.

Services are having limited positive impact on improving the life chances of those who have committed offences. Services are not responsive to need and risk and have minimal desired results. Those getting help and support are unable to receive maximum benefit from services because the quality is not of a high standard, or the bestserviceforthematthattime.Overall,those who have committed offences do not feel the services received have adequately helped them achieve better outcomes and wellbeing.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWecanshowthatpeoplewhohavecommitted offences benefit from receiving all types of appropriate help they need, promptly and without delay at all stages in the community justice pathway. Their experience of receiving help at the earliest opportunity has made a positive impact in their lives. Their wellbeing has improved and there has been a cessation or reduction in offending behaviour as a result of getting help at the right time.

Peoplewhohavecommittedoffencesoften reach crisis point, or their circumstances have deteriorated significantly before they get the type of helptheyneed.Helpisnotaccessedattheright time or at the earliest opportunity. Too often there are delays in community justice systems and processes that impact on getting help when it is needed. Wellbeingandcessationinoffendingbehaviour has not improved or reduced due to not receiving help at the right time. There has been an escalation in offending or a deterioration in overall wellbeing as a result of not getting help when it is needed.

Wecanshowthatpeoplewhohavecommitted offences are very well supported as soon as any difficulties arise. They experience a strong sense that all presenting issues are dealt with sensitively and appropriately. Experience of services has been non-stigmatising and people who use services have been treated with respect and dignity by all they come into contact with. They feel they are treated equally to others and staff are honest, trusting and non-judgemental. Relationshipswithstaffarepositivestriking the right balance between being supportive and promoting responsibility.

The support provided is not sufficient in dealing with the range of issues that people who have committed offences present with. The experience of receiving support does not feel responsive to individual needs and behaviour and they are left feeling unclear or disillusioned about the necessary change they require to make. Relationshipswithstaffarenotviewedassupportive and can often feel judgmental and uncaring.


2.2 Impact on victims

Themes

• Towhatextentdovictimsofcrimefeelsafe?

• Towhatextentdovictimsofcrimefeeltheyareprovidedwithhelpfulinformationandsupportbycommunityjusticeservices?

Key features

This indicator focuses on the impact and difference community justice is making in the lives of those who have been the victims of crime. It considers the extent to which they have been provided with helpful information and have been able to access support to enable and encourage their recovery from crime. It focuses on the level of confidence victims of crime have in services to keep communities safe.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWecandemonstratethatvictimsofcrimefeel confident that community justice services are successful in their approaches and attempts to reduce the impact of crime and address wellbeing. They are confident community justice partners take account of factors such as gender, race, religion, sexuality, health and age, and that hate crime is well understood and acted upon. They feel safer as a result of direct contact they have had with community justice services. Staff provide a sensitive approach to real or perceived concerns and respond in a supportive manner. They feel safer as a result of indirect approaches to tackling crime within their communities.

There is a lack of confidence by those who have been victims of crime that responses to crime are dealt with in the best possible way. This lack of confidence results in victims feeling unsafe or being unabletomakeasuccessfulrecovery.Weare insufficiently sighted on what services are doing to make communities feel safer. Victims of crime are not confident that partners take account of factors such as gender, race, religion, sexuality, health and age, or that hate crime is well understood.

Wecanshowthatvictimsofcrimebenefitfrom accessing and receiving useful information and help from community justice services when they need or want it, following their experiences of crime. This happens without delay and no matter wheretheylive.Helpcontinuestobeavailable for as long as required to help recovery.

Useful information is not readily available. Helpfromcommunityjusticeservicesisdelayed and can be impacted upon by organisational processes that get in the way of victims receiving help when they will benefit most from it. The availability of help may not always be easily accessible and there is little evidence of attempts to make this more available. Victims of crime are unsure what type of help they can receive.


2.3 Impact on families

Themes

• Towhatextentdofamiliesofthosewhohavecommittedoffencesfeeltheircircumstanceshaveimproved?

• Towhatextentdofamiliesfeelmoreconfidentandresilient?

• Towhatextentishelpreceivedwhenitisneeded?

Key features

This indicator considers the extent to which families are confident that the supports they receive help them mitigate against the detrimental impact caused by having a family member involved in crime. It considers how well supports have met their needs and enabled them to become more resilient, in turn helping them to support desistance in family members. It focuses on the perceived difference services are making in their lives and the extent to which families consider their circumstances have improved as a result of help and support received.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationAs a result of their experience of services, families circumstances have considerably stabilised and, where appropriate, improved. They are very confident that the quality of help and support they receive has made their lives better. They have been able to access wider services they may need as a result of specific serviceinvolvement.Familiesfeeltheyhave been treated with respect and in a non-judgemental way and they are not stigmatised through the supports they receive.

Familiescircumstanceshavenotstabilisedas a result of help and support received. Services available are often limited and access to these can be difficult. Their experiences have left them more unlikely to engage with future services and trust in services has been adversely affected. Familiesfeeltheyhaveoftenbeenjudgedand treated unfairly and do not feel they have been able to make best use of potential services available to them.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationFamiliesreceivehelpfulandreliablesupport that responds to their different circumstances, including when they may be victims of offences by family members. They are involved in all relevant discussions and decisions. They are valued as important contributors to ensuring positive outcomes for themselves and members of their families who have committed offences. The importance of familial support and relationships to successful desistance and reintegration is widely recognised by staff. They work as equal partners with services to secure solid support for their family members and prevent circumstances deteriorating. As a result, their resilience and confidence is increasing and reliance on support is decreasing.

Familiesaresometimesisolatedanddonot always find it easy to connect with appropriate support networks. There are often limited supports available to them.Familiesarenotprovidedwiththeopportunity to be involved and, as a result, often feel marginalised and excluded. The important role they play in rehabilitation and support is not always fully recognised by staff, resulting in them being left out. Similarly, the impact when they have been victims of offences by family members is not recognised sufficiently. As a result, their confidence and safety are compromised and their potential to build resilience within their families is not maximised.

Familiesareverywellsupportedassoonas difficulties arise. They get help early and often enough, in ways that best meet their needs. Support is easily accessible and personalised to meet their needs. Forthosefamilieswhofinditdifficulttoengage with support services, staff are flexible and innovative in their approaches inreachingouttofamilies.Flexiblepartnership approaches are used to best effect and families receive help and support for as long as they need it.

Familieshavenotbeenabletogettheright help or support when they need it. Whentheydoreceivehelpandsupportitis not enough, is time limited and inflexible. Getting access to services has been difficult and often seems to have obstacles in the way. Too often, services have a one size fits all approach and are not tailored to individual need or circumstances.


3. Impact on staff

3.1 Impact on staff

Themes

• Howmotivatedarestaffinvolvedinthedelivery,managementorleadershipofcommunityjustice?

• Howwellinformedandinvolvedarestaffinvolvedinthedelivery,managementorleadershipofcommunityjustice?

• Howvalueddostaffinvolvedinthedelivery,managementorleadershipofcommunityjusticefeel?

Key features

This indicator focuses on the extent to which staff involved in community justice are committed and motivated to improving the life chances of those who have committed offences, their families, victims and communities. It considers how well staff are involved in the development of services that come under the auspices of community justice. It relates to how well their contribution to improving the lives of those involved in, or affected by, crime is valued and recognised.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationStaff have a strong and shared commitment to working with their community justice partners to improve the life chances of people who have committed offences, their families, victims and wider communities. They are proactive in tackling issues of inequality and discrimination that may arise as a result of the people they work with having committed offences. They have a shared understanding of the importance of wellbeing and factors associated with offending behaviour and critical success factors for desistance. Staff have a clear understanding of their own roles and responsibilities as well as those of their colleagues. They are highly motivated to work together to achieve the best possible outcomes for people who have committed offences, their families, victims and wider communities.

Staff motivation is limited to team working and peer support, rather than to achieving the vision for community justice. Staff are not confident about joint working with colleagues in other services. They do not hold a shared understanding of the importance of wellbeing and factors associated with offending behaviour. They understand their own roles, but are unclear on the roles of their colleagues. Staff are alert to issues of inequality and discrimination but do little to challenge this or effect change.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationStaff are meaningfully informed and involved in the ongoing development of services for people who have committed offences. They are energised and encouraged by the vision for community justice and the visibility of their leaders. They are engaged purposefully in promoting good practice and identifying areas for improvement. Staff are supported to test out new and improved ways of working and take pride in the contribution they make. They understand what needs to be done to improve the quality and effectiveness of their work and the work of others.

Staff have insufficient opportunity to contribute meaningfully to service developments. They do not feel well informed or that their views are taken into account. They are not engaged in promoting good practice or identifying areas for improvement. This often leaves them feeling excluded from key developments. They do not understand the rationale for proposed changes to their ways of working and can be reluctant to implement these.

Staff experience a high level of satisfaction in working together to deliver services. They feel valued and their contribution is recognised. They are provided with opportunities to develop their skills, knowledge and experience. They feel that what they provide makes a difference to improving the lives of those involved in or affected by crime. They believe that what they do is understood and respected by leaders.

Staff experience varying levels of satisfaction in the quality of service theyaredelivering.Whiletheyworkconscientiously on their own and with their immediate colleagues, they experience barriers to joint working with colleagues withinandacrossservices.Opportunitiesto improve practice are limited. Staff feel they are not deployed effectively and feel undervalued.


4. Impact on communities

4.1 Impact on communities

Themes

• Howwellhaveweimprovedawarenessandunderstandingofcommunityjustice?

• Arecommunitiesimprovedasaresultofcommunityjusticeservices?

• Arecommunitiesinvolvedandprovidingsupport?

Key features

This indicator focuses on the extent to which communities have a raised awareness and knowledge of community justice, are able to participate in planning and are co-producers of local services. It considers how well partners engage and involve communities in community justice to enable them together to improve their communities. It has a focus on the extent to which there is public confidence in community justice services

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWehavedevelopedajointcommunications strategy and are using this to engage and involve communities.Publicawarenessraisingcampaignsare in place and a range of mediums are successfully being used, such as social media, to help raise awareness ofcommunityjustice.Weareableto demonstrate raised awareness of community justice across their localcommunities.Wehavetakenopportunities through other community planning engagement activities to raise awareness and consistent messages about community justice.

Weunderstandtheneedtodevelopajointcommunications strategy but have not yet done this. There have been limited efforts to engage communities in discussion aboutcommunityjustice.Werecognisethe need to raise public awareness about community justice, but have not yet acted uponthis.Wehavenotyetdevelopedaclear approach on how we are going to do this and have not used other community planning engagement mechanisms as a platform to achieve this.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWeareabletodemonstratethatcommunity confidence in community justice has improved as a result of the activities they have undertaken and the servicestheyprovide.Wehavearangeoffeedback mechanisms in place to ensure communities know what has changed for the better.

Wehavenotyettakenstepstoseektheviews of our communities to understand howwelltheythinkserviceswork.Wedonot know if what they have implemented has made a positive difference in local communities. Mechanisms to do this in a meaningfulwayareunderdeveloped.Weare not yet able to show that communities are more confident in the services we provide under the auspices of community justice.

Wehaveadevelopedajointparticipationstrategy and capitalise on current mechanisms already in place. Innovative approaches to involving communities have been taken, including involving harder to reach groups. Co-production is present and there is evidence that communities are increasing their ability to support each other and those affected by crime. Asset based approaches are being utilised.

Werecognisetheneedtohaveajointparticipation strategy in place but have notyetachievedthis.Weknowthereisa range of pre-existing community based groups they can link with, but have not developed a sound understanding of whattheseareandwhatthegapsare.Weknow our communities provide a valuable asset to provide support but have not yet capitalised upon this.


How good is our delivery of services for those involved in community justice?5. Delivery of key processes

5.1 Providing help and support when it is needed

Themes

• Howwelldowedeliverefficientandtimelyjustice?

• Howwelldowerecognisewhenindividualsneedhelpandsupport?

• Howwellhaveweidentifiedandremovedbarrierstoservices,ensuringeasieraccesstohelpandsupport?

Key features

This indicator focuses on the extent to which staff recognise that people who have committed offences need help and collectively respond to this in a quick and timely way. It looks at how responsive and person-centred services are, from arrest to prosecution, to disposal and onwards, to ensure appropriate support is put in place without delay. It considers that no matter the circumstances, people who have committed offences receive the support they need, which is easy to access. It looks at the timeliness and effectiveness of justice in preventing further difficulties arising or increasing.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationFromthefirstpointofcontactwithinthe community justice pathway the intervention is responsive to need and non-judgemental. Good information about community justice processes is in place, to ensure those with lived experience of community justice know what is happening at all stages in the community justice pathway. This information should be readily available in different formats. All attempts are made to ensure processes are swift and delays arekepttoaminimum.Partnersworkcollaboratively to support people to access person-centred help and support. A range of early and effective intervention and alternative to prosecution approaches are in place at different stages, such as pre-arrest, arrest, prosecution and disposal.

Contact with community justice services is driven by internal processes rather than being person-centred. There is limited information available about all stages in the community justice pathway to help those with lived experience know what ishappening.Whendelaysexistandarerecognised as having an impact, very little is done to make changes to improve the way services are delivered. Justice is slow and there is little evidence that we are working effectively together to ensure that need and risk are addressed quickly enough. There are limited early intervention and prevention approaches in place.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWerecognisewhensomethingisgettingin the way of improving the life chances oftheindividual.Wetakeappropriateresponsibility and action to respond to concerns in the most helpful way. There is strong collaboration by us to ensure individuals get the right help at the right time.

Wedonotalwaysrecognisewhensomething is getting in the way of improving the life chances of the individual and therefore do not respond in the appropriate way to ensure their circumstancesdonotdeteriorate.Withindifferent services we do not always recognise the role we have in assisting and supporting individuals and linking them intootherservices.Helpandsupportisnotreceived when needed as a result of this.

Services are easy to access and person-centred. All efforts have been made to identify and remove any obstacles or barriers to receiving services. Effective action to identify and remove barriers, through multi-agency policy, protocols and practice, is in place. There is a continuity of care throughout and every contact in the community justice pathway provides a health improvement opportunity. Transition arrangements at all stages are considered carefully and provide a seamless approach to accessing services.

There are barriers to accessing services and these are not easy to navigate around. There has been no attempt to identify and remove barriers to ensure services are more responsive and reactive to need. Wearenotworkingeffectivelytogetherto make services easier to access and, as a result, individual need and risk are left unmet. At times of transition, difficulties arise in accessing services. The result of this is need and risk are left unmet, or there are delays in providing the right help and support when it is most needed. There is little evidence that we have worked together to ensure transition arrangements are seamless.


5.2 Assessing and responding to risk and need

Themes

• Howeffectiveisourinitialresponsetoneedandrisk?

• Howeffectiveareourinformationsharingprocesses?

• Howeffectiveisthequalityofourassessmentofriskandneed?

Key features

This indicator focuses on the effectiveness of the initial response to people who have committed offences, when there are concerns about their wellbeing and or the risk they present to themselves or others. It considers how well partners share information and use it effectively to make decisions. This indicator also considers the quality of assessment of risk and need.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWehaveveryeffectivemeasuresforconsidering the circumstances of someone who has committed an offence when there are concerns about their wellbeingorpotentialrisk.Wepromptlyshare information and act quickly and responsively to presenting issues and link well with each other to work collaboratively.Welinkappropriatelywiththose services that may not come under the auspices of community justice. Early assessment of arising concerns is evident to ensure the most appropriate response is made. Immediate action is taken to ensure safety and reduction of risk.

Ourarrangementsforconsideringmattersof concern about wellbeing or risk are not consistent, or do not involve each other as appropriate. Information is not always shared or effectively considered in reaching decisions or taking action. There are delays in taking the necessary action required whilst assessments are being carried out.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWeshareinformationresponsiblyandhaveclear protocols in place to do this. Critical information is shared quickly without delay. This is evident in relation to information to protect children and young people and vulnerable adults, including protection from sexual exploitation. Consent to sharing information is sought as appropriate and there is clear guidance in place for staff to adhere to. Systems are in place to support robustinformationsharing.Wheretheseare not in place, we have a clear ‘work around’ to ensure strong recording practice is evident and relevant information is accessible as required. Information is used competently and ethically to inform decision making and action.

Weareunclearontheexpectationsregarding sharing information, due to lack of guidance or protocols for staff. Critical information, in particular to protect children and young people and vulnerable adults, is not shared promptly or, when information is shared, it is not acted upon appropriately. There is a lack of understanding on when and what kind of information should be shared and when consent is required. There is a lack of care regarding information shared, with unnecessary information being shared. Systems for sharing information are unclear andunderdeveloped.Howinformationisrecorded is highly variable which means information is not always readily available when it is needed.

A range of comprehensive assessment tools are used by staff to meet the differingneedsofindividuals.Wheremore specialist assessments are required these are completed. Assessment of need and risk are completed timeously and updated in accordance with risk, need and changes in circumstances. Assessments are completed are to a high standard and quality. Assessments are updated and responsive to periods of transition and are completed well in advance to ensure robust transitional planning.

There are limited assessment tools available for staff to use to meet different need and risk. Staff do not always have the necessary training to use assessment tools. There is limited access to specialist assessments. Assessments are not always completed in a timeous manner that is responsive the risk and need and changing circumstances. The quality of assessments is not to an acceptable standard. Assessments are not completed in preparation for transition stages for individuals which often impacts on decision making, planning and accessing services.


5.3 Planning and providing effective intervention

Themes

• Howeffectiveisthequalityofourplansandplanning?

• Howtimelyandeffectiveareourinterventions?

• Howeffectiveisthequalityandrangeofourinterventions?

Key features

This indicator focuses on the quality of plans produced for those who have committed offences and how well partners use those plans to provide effective interventions to meet need and risk. It considers the quality of planning with a particular focus on how well all aspects of transitional arrangements are planned and implemented. It considers how well these plans are used to review progress and adapt interventions as necessary. In particular, this indicator focuses on the range of timely and effective person-centred interventions and whether they are of a high quality.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWhereanindividualshouldhaveaplan,this is in place and informed by sound assessment.Plansarereviewedasappropriate and up to date, to ensure they areresponsivetoneedandrisk.Plansreflect a multi-agency approach with clearlydefinedresponsibilities.PlansareSMARTandoutcomes-focused.Stafffulfil their collective responsibilities and contribute effectively and appropriately in the planning process. Staff hold each other accountable for the shared delivery ofindividualplans.Proactiveandrobustplanning is in place for transition stages well in advance and ensures a seamless process. There is strong joint working to achieve the best person-centred intervention, particularly in more complex cases.

Plansarenotaswellinformedbyassessment as they should be and are not always in place. The quality of plans is highlyvariable.Plansandplanningdonotalways involve all relevant partners and lack a multi-agency approach. Staff do not always fulfil their responsibilities as outlined in plans and are not held to account for this.Reviewsarenotundertakenasandwhen required. Transition planning is often late and reactive, resulting in services and support not being in place when it needs to be. There is limited response by partners to make changes to these deficits to improve planning processes


Very good illustration Weak illustrationIndividuals receive timely and effective person-centred supportive interventions. Helpisavailableforaslongasitisneededno matter where you live. Interventions provide flexible responses to need that take account of the often chaotic and unstable circumstances of many individuals using services. Issues of responsivity have been taken account of and acted upon. Action has also been taken to ensure services are reactive to more vulnerable groups such as women, young people, those with a disability or mental health and addiction problems.‘Onestopshops’havebeendeveloped to ensure easier access to a range of services.

Person-centredinterventionsareoftennotin place when they need to be. There are often delays in accessing the intervention required.Helpandsupportisoftentimelimited even though it is needed for longer, or a different support is not put in place at the time it is required. Interventions can be restricted by where you live. Support is not responsive or flexible to the needs of the community. Services lack adaptability to take account of the potentially chaotic and unstable circumstances of the community it provides services to. There are limited specialist interventions, or interventions for more vulnerable groups available.

Highqualityperson-centredinterventionsare available for all, no matter which stage they are at within the community justice pathway. The range of provision is able to meet all aspects of wellbeing, need and risk, no matter where you live, with equity of access to services. Third sector partners are utilised well to provide range and depth of interventions. Specialist intervention services are made available asrequired.Wheregapsinqualityorrange of provision have been identified, partners work together to address this deficit.Opportunitiestoprovideintegratedservices as the best means of delivery are developed and in place.

Person-centredinterventionisnotdelivered to an acceptable standard and limited action has been taken to address this. The range of interventions are limited and do not meet the needs ofthecommunities.Wheregapshavebeen identified there has been limited action to improve the range and quality ofinterventions.Wehavenotcapitalisedor utilised the third sector as we should to ensure a range and depth of provision is available. Specialist provision is not available.Wehavenotyetconsideredthepossibility of integrated services.


5.4 Involving those who have committed offences, their families and victims

Themes

• Howeffectiveisparticipationinkeyprocesses?

• Howeffectiveareweatseekingandrecordingviews?

• Howeffectiveareweatactingonviews?

Key features

This indicator considers how well those who have committed offences and their families are involved and participate in key processes. It focuses on how well their views are sought, recorded and acted on. It looks at how well people who have committed offences are at the centre of all processes and are encouraged to take ownership and responsibility for what needs to happen, alongside those providing services.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationPeoplewhohavecommittedoffencesandvictims are at the centre of key processes affecting them ensuring a whole systems approach.Diversityanddifferenceisrespected and a fair and inclusive manner is adopted in all work undertaken. Information is available, easy to read and clear.Responsibility,controlandchoiceare promoted and every effort is made to do this. Approaches to participation are unique to the individual and their circumstances.Familiesareencouragedtobe involved in key processes, and all efforts are made to achieve this, especially during periods of custody. Independent advocacy is made available to aid participation in key processes if required.

The voice of those with lived experience of community justice can get lost in the midst of key processes and activity. Whilstthereisrecognitionofdiversityanddifference, this is not always acted upon or considered. Information is available, but is limited in how helpful, easy to read or understand it is. Individuals are not always involved as full participants. Consideration is not always given to other commitments and needs that may get in the way of full involvement. A generic approach is taken to involving individuals and their families without considering their unique circumstances.Familiesareinvited,butnot actively encouraged or provided with the means and support to help them be as involved as they wish to be. There is no real sense that advocacy has been considered when it is required.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationStaff listen carefully to what individuals say and have a thorough understanding of their views, wishes and expectations. Individuals are able to comment and challenge where they are not in agreement and this is heard and considered. Those with learning, communication or other difficulties, or for whom English is not their first language, are able to express their views fully. Inclusive approaches are in place to hear the views of families and others. All records are accurate and views are taken into account in all assessments, decisions and planning.

Whilststafflistentotheviewsoftheindividual they have limited understanding of their wishes and expectations. Opportunitiestocommentandchallengeare offered but not fully advocated or supported to promote meaningful involvement. There is not always enough support for those with communication difficulties or for whom English is not their first language. There are limited approaches to promote robust involvement offamilymembers.Recordsandassessments do not always fully reflect the views of the individual or their family.

In promoting responsibility, ownership and control, opportunities are in place to help support individuals to progress their wishes and expectations. There is clear promotion of self-determination and self-directed activity to make positive changes in life. In achieving this, staff ensure individuals are held accountable for their actions.

There is limited opportunity taken to help individuals take more positive control oftheirownlives.Responsibilityandincreased resilience is not built upon to support self-directed positive change. Staff do not challenge or hold individuals accountable for their behaviour or actions.


How good is our operational management?

6. Policy, service development and planning

6.1 Policies, procedures and legal measures

Themes

• Howwellarewefulfillingourstatutorydutieswithincommunityjustice?

• Towhatextentarewereviewingandupdatingpoliciesandplans?

Key features

This indicator considers the extent to which partners individually and collectively are fulfilling their statutory duties in light of the community justice model. It considers how well all part-ners have made arrangements for reviewing and updating both single and joint policies and plans to align with community justice expectations.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWehaveaclearunderstandingofourstatutory function under the Community Justice(Scotland)Act2016andotherrelevantlegislation.Weareabletodemonstrate a collective understanding ofeachother’sresponsibilities.Wehave a shared value base, which is underpinned by very sound knowledge and commitment to fulfilling statutory obligations, regulations, guidance and codes of practice. There is strong and robust engagement with third sector partners.

WeareunfamiliarwithourresponsibilitiesundertheCommunityJustice(Scotland)Act 2016 and are not well sighted on eachother’sroleandresponsibilities.Wemeet our statutory duties to a minimal standard and there are inconsistencies in the ways in which legislation and guidance is implemented. Engagement with third sector partners has not been taken forward.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWehaveadaptedandchangedoursingleagency local and national policies and plans to reflect changes to community justiceasappropriate.Wehaveensuredthese align to both national priorities and local arrangements. In doing this we have taken a shared approach to learn from each other. Together, and separately as appropriate, we have developed and updated policies and protocols to ensure theyfitwelltogether.Whereopportunitiesarise to develop shared policies and protocols this has been done, including with other strategic partnership groups.

Werecognisetheneedtoupdateourpolicies and plans to reflect change to community justice but have not yet done this.Weareapproachingthistaskona single agency basis without holding discussions to ensure they all fit together well.Wehavenottakenadvantageofdeveloping shared protocols or policies. Staff are unsure what the expected practice is within their work.


6.2 Planning and delivering services in a collaborative way

Themes

• Howeffectiveiscollaborationbyallstatutorypartners?

• Towhatextentareweproducingahighqualitycommunityjusticeoutcomeimprovementplan?

• Howeffectiveiscollaborativeworkingwiththethirdsectorandnon-statutorypartners?

Key features

This indicator focuses on how well all statutory and third sector partners are working together and effectively delivering high quality community justice outcome improvement plans. It considers how well all partners are collaborating to deliver high-quality services that are informed by the profile of their local population and targeted at meeting need.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWehaveasharedandjointeffortinourapproachtocollaborativeworking.Wehave a well understood statement of intention that is well understood by staff across partner services. There is a commitment and focus on prevention and early intervention at different stages. A robust and comprehensive strategic needs assessment has been completed and helps support strategic planning efforts. Joint strategic planning and approaches are in place with clear and robust agreed governance arrangements. Together we review the quality of our planning arrangementsandmakechanges.Whereappropriate we have demonstrated meaningful and well considered attempts to integrated approaches to service delivery.

Werecognisetheimportanceandneedfor strong collaboration to deliver high quality community justice services, but have yet to demonstrate this has been fully realised and acted upon by us all. There is collaboration by some, but others are not as involved as they should be. Whilstwehaveclearintentionsregardingour single agency roles in community justice, a shared commitment is not yet in place. Strategic planning is taking place but it is not well informed by key factors such as strategic needs assessment, clear and robust governance arrangements, preventative approaches or integration of service options.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationTogether we have delivered a high quality community justice outcome improvement plan that takes account of legislation, national strategy and national framework requirementsforourlocalarea.Ourplanis well informed by a strategic needs assessment and contains robust financial andresourceinformation.Weareabletoleverageresourcessuccessfully.Weare able to demonstrate preventative approaches from early intervention to high level intervention needs. Performancemanagementistoahighquality and reflects both national and local requirements.

Wehavebeenunabletodeliverahighquality community justice outcome improvement plan that takes account of all requirements and reflects our local and national priorities. The plan is limited and does not provide the level of depth and rigour which we require to deliver high quality services and positive outcomes. Ourplanlackscleardirectionandvisionand does not aid good performance reporting or measures of success.

The role of the third sector is valued, well considered and demonstrated in the work of the partnership and the delivery of services. There is strong evidence the third sector is involved and consulted and working alongside the statutory partners directing the development and delivery ofservices.Weareabletodemonstrateefforts to involve non-statutory partners in planning and delivery of services that is based on the needs of the local population. Strong inter-relationships with other strategic partnerships, such as child protection committees, adult protection committees and violence against women partnershipsareevident.Opportunitiesto work together on shared issues are maximised with combined efforts of activity.

Third sector partners are recognised as being valuable partners, but true and mature involvement in strategic planning anddeliveryisnotyetinplace.Weconsultthird sector partners but this is directed by us, as opposed to co-productive approaches that reflect equality of partnership. There has been limited activity to engage wider non-statutory partners in the planning and delivery of community justice services. There are links to other strategic groups, but how they interlink and work together is underdeveloped and we tend to operate in silos.


6.3 Participation of those who have committed offences, their families, victims and other stakeholders

Themes

• Howwelldowecommunicateandconsultwithallstakeholders?

• Howwelldoweinvolveallstakeholdersinpolicy,planningandservicedevelopment?

Key features

This indicator considers the extent to which people who have committed offences their families, victims and other stakeholders are involved and consulted in the development of policy, planning and services. It focuses on the different ways this is done and what impact it has, ensuring that partners build upon already existing mechanisms and target harder to reach groups. It considers the extent of community involvement and co-production.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationThere are very effective joint engagement andconsultationmethodsinplace.Wehave taken advantage of already existing groups to avoid duplication and maximise themtogreatesteffect.Wherenecessarywe have taken steps to engage harder to reachgroups.Wefacilitateveryeffectiveparticipation of individuals with more complexneeds.Wehavedevelopedarange of mediums to engage those who use services and wider communities to best effect and to maximise potential. Wehavewelldevelopedmechanismstoprovide feedback following consultation andinvolvement.Wehavewellestablishedprocesses for seeking the views and consulting with stakeholders.

Weareatanearlystageindevelopingjoint approaches and strategies to communicating and consulting with people who have committed offences, their families, victims and other stakeholders.Wehavenotyetidentifiedor capitalised upon already existing groups we could engage with for such purposes, or taken steps to identify or engage harder toreachgroups.Wemakevariedandinconsistent attempts to reduce barriers to communication and involvement. Some groups are over consulted with whilst othersarenotyetincluded.Wehavenotyet developed a mechanism to provide feedback post consultation, which leaves stakeholders unsure as to whether their views have been considered or made a difference.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationThere is a strong commitment to ensuring our policies and planning arrangements and service developments represent the views of those who have committed offences, their families and victims of crime and wider communities. Involvement and participation comes across strongly in our community justice outcome improvement plan, local outcome improvement plan andotherpolicies.Wehaveajointparticipation and engagement strategy forcommunityjustice.Peoplewhohave committed offences, their families, victims and those affected by crime have meaningful opportunities for access to local accountable officers representing thecommunityjusticepartners.Wecan demonstrate that participation and involvement approaches directly influence our policies and the provision of services, including changes in service provision. Co-production and innovative approaches are at the heart of our involvement and participation activity.

Wearecommittedtoinvolvingpeopleinpolicies, planning and service development. However,wedonothaveaclearstrategyto do this and we do not routinely seek the views of all stakeholders on the full rangeofservices.Ourcommunityjusticeoutcome improvement plan and our local outcome improvement plan do not include or represent well the views of thosemostaffectedbycrime.Weprovidefew meaningful opportunities for people those who have committed offences, their families, victims and those affected by crime, to discuss planning and service provision with local accountable officers representing community justice partners. Weareunabletodemonstratethattheviews of those using services have a direct influence in provision or change to services. There is no evidence of co-production.


6.4 Performance management and quality assurance

Themes

• HowwelldoweusetheOPIFramework?

• Howeffectiveareourlocalsystems,processesandreportingarrangements?

• Towhatextentarewereachingtargetsandimprovingconsistency?

Key features

This indicator relates to the effectiveness of performance management and quality assurance mechanisms to ensure high standards in service delivery focused on improving the outcomes of those who have committed offences and those affected by crime. It considers how well partnersusetheOPIFrameworktobesteffectalongsidelocalmechanismsforreporting.Iffocuses on how partners set targets that consolidate performance and strive for improvement.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWehavemadeeffectiveuseoftheOPIFramework.Wehavearangeofhighquality performance management information through use of the outcomes and indicators and have set priorities and targets to improve performance based uponthese.Wehavesystemsinplaceacross partners that enable us to gather robust performance information that is reliable. The 5-step approach to evaluation and or other local approaches has been used to measure the performance of individual services and used to influence ongoing commissioning arrangements locally.

WearenotusingtheOPIFrameworktobest effect. The outcomes and indicators are not reported on to an acceptable standard, or being used to set priorities and targets.Wherewehavedecidednottoreport on certain indicators, the rationale for this is not clear enough. There are limited or variable systems and processes in place to gather performance information which affects the quality and reliability of our information. The 5-step approach to evaluation or local approaches is not being used to identify how well individual services are performing. Such methods are not being used to help inform future commissioning activity.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWehavetakenstepstodevelopfurtherlocal performance measures based on local priorities. There are well established systems and processes to gather quality performanceinformation.Reportingarrangements provide timely and reliable information.Performancewhichfallsbelow expectations is quickly identified andactiontakentocorrectthis.Weroutinely quality assure key processes. Whenvariabilityinqualityofworkisidentified, effective solutions are put in placetoremedythis.Robustapproachesto scrutinising performance are well established and operating well.

Wehavenotyetconsideredperformancemeasures based on locally determined priorities. Systems for gathering performance information are inefficient. Performancereportingdoesnotprovidethe level of detail needed to identify inconsistencies in practice. Staff are therefore unable to use performance data to identify where improvement is needed andmakechanges.Limitedinformationabout quality of service makes it difficult to take remedial action to improve. The scrutiny of performance is not robust and is inconsistent.

Wesetbothaspirationalandrealistictargetsonperformance.Wereviewtheseand take corrective action necessary to achieve goals. Strong performance is sustained over time and improvements are made across all areas in a consistently progressive way. Quality assurance systems and processes are used to maintain high standards and consistency ofwork.Wearenotcontentmeetingminimum standards and continually strive to improve the quality of our work.

Wedonotensurewemeetperformancetargets or take remedial action to improve on this, including reviewing our targets for appropriateness.Wedonotsufficientlychallenge ourselves to perform better by making targets more demanding. Improvements are delivered in some areas of work but key processes remain inconsistent. There are significant gaps in the work covered by our quality assurance processes.


7. Management and support of staff

7.1 Staff training and development and joint working

Themes

• Howcompetentandconfidentisourworkforce?

• Howeffectiveisourtraininganddevelopment?

• Howeffectiveisouradvice,guidanceandsupporttostaff?

• Howeffectiveisourmulti-disciplinaryandjointworking?

Key features

This indicator relates to how well staff are supported to be competent and confident in their work. It is concerned with the effectiveness of training and development to ensure that staff have the necessary knowledge, skills and qualifications to perform their work well. It considers the effectiveness of the advice, guidance and supervision that staff receive to reflect and improve upon their practice. It also considers the extent to which teamwork and multi-disciplinary working are promoted within and across services.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWehaveestablishedapositivecultureandsupportive work environment. Staff are supported, supervised and accountable for their work. They get help and advice when they need it and are encouraged to exercise initiative and professional judgement. An effective appraisal process is well embedded to ensure professional competence on a routine basis. This is used to develop the skills and competence of the workforce.

Staff lack confidence and are reluctant to use their initiative or take appropriate decisions. There is a culture in which staff are not held accountable for their work or equipped to fulfil their responsibilities. They do not have access to an appraisal process that links to their role and function within community justice.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationThere is a clear commitment and strategy inplacetodevelopstaff.Opportunitiesare in place and action is taken to contribute to the national strategy for innovation, learning and development. Staff demonstrate a sound knowledge and understanding of the values and principles of community justice. Joint training is provided on a regular and planned basis. All staff undertaking specific roles have access to up to date training required to carry out their functions effectively and canreflectonthebenefitofthis.Newstaffbenefit from highly effective induction and training.

There is a lack of commitment or clear strategy to provide appropriate joint training to ensure a competent and able workforce. There are limited opportunities to utilise national training or learning, which impacts on staff ability to develop the skillset they require to carry out their role and function. There are limited opportunities for staff to benefit from planned joint training. Staff understanding of the values and principles of community justice is not well developed. Staff do not always have the essential up to date training required to do undertake their role effectively. The impact of training is not well known.

There is a strong learning ethos in which reflection and learning are valued. There is learning from research findings, learning reviews and examples of good practice. Staff benefit from sound professional guidance and supervision, challenge and support and opportunities to learn, improve and develop.

Practiceishighlyvariableandthelevelof support and advice to address this is limited with poor practice often going unchallenged. Staff do not benefit from quality supervision and guidance, challenge andsupport.Opportunitiestobenefitfrom research, learning reviews and good practice is not valued and is limited.

Teams have the range of skills, knowledge and experience to deliver high quality services. They hold strong professional expertise that they share and benefit from in their work with colleagues. Staff work well together to achieve the stated aims and have a shared vision. Joint working and multi-disciplinary teamwork is effective in delivering high quality services.

Withinteams,notenoughattentionhasbeen given to ensure they hold the range of skills, knowledge and expertise to provide consistently high quality services. Professionalexpertiseisvariableandnotalways shared to best use within and across teams. Staff lack confidence in team working and are unclear how their work contributes to a shared vision. Joint working is not well established and there is little evidence of multi-disciplinary teamwork.


8. Partnership and resources

8.1 Effective use and management of resources

Themes

• Howwellareweleveragingresources?

• Howeffectiveisourjointdeploymentandexpenditureofresources?

• Towhatextentareweachievingbestvalue?

Key features

This indicator considers the extent to which partners are innovative in their approaches to delivering services in the most sustainable and resource efficient way that still ensures the delivery of high quality services. It is concerned with the combined approaches by partners to deploy resources in a way that is able to demonstrate sound resource management and achieve best value. It considers the extent to which this is achieved in a planned and sustained way that is focused on best practice and achieving good outcomes.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWearetakingevidenceledandgoodpractice approaches and action to combining resources, to ensure best deliveryofsustainableservices.Wehavebeen proactive in leveraging resources by pulling together and re-creating servicesbasedonneed.Weareproactivein reshaping services by identifying opportunities to ‘spend to save’. In achieving this, we have undertaken sound cost, risk and need analysis to ensure leveraging resources are based upon soundprinciplesofgoodpractice.Robust,cost effective resource planning is in place toachievechangesindelivery.Weareable to demonstrate a clear rationale for leveraging resources and can demonstrate their success. Asset based approaches are maximised to full effect.

Werecognisethebenefitofleveragingresources but have not yet put this into practice based on a sound, cost and risk analysis to provide improved services. Wherewehavecombinedresources,thishas not been based on clear rationale to provide better quality services, but has been driven only by financial savings. There have been limited opportunities to draw on good practice in the reshaping of services to ensure they are sustainable. Resourceplanningtomakechangesinservice provision lacks rigour. Maximising community assets has not been considered.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationThere is a joint approach to the deploymentofresources.Weareableto demonstrate how our collective management and deployment of resources is tackling inequality and reducing demand for specialist services. Opportunitiesforsharingstaff,expertise,information, property and finance, and ensuring strong collaboration have been maximised.Wekeepeachotherwellinformed about resources.

Those responsible for managing resources are not always well enough briefed to participate in informed, collective decision making.Opportunitiestomakebestuseof sharing resources and developing an overview of community justice services are overlooked. There has been little discernible improvement through joint deployment of resources in the quality and effectiveness of services.

Weunderstandandaccommodatefinancialconstraints.Wecandemonstratea rigorous and collaborative approach to implementing best value. Streamlined governance and accountability arrangements are helping us to jointly review, appraise options and maximise opportunities to reduce costs and avoid duplication. This is helping achieve sustainability of services.

Weareinconsistentinjointlyreviewingservices to achieve best value. Cost and resource constraints are not managed effectively.Wearebecomingmoreforwardlooking in seeking to improve our efficiency but our resource planning focuses too much on the bottom line without paying sufficient attention to service quality and the impact on service users.


8.2 Commissioning arrangements

Themes

• Towhatextentarewebalancingdirectprovisionandpurchasedservices?

• Howeffectiveisourfundingandcommissioning?

• Howwellarewemonitoringandreviewingquality?

Key features

This indicator focuses on the extent to which partners work together to develop and implement robust joint strategic commissioning arrangements. It considers the extent to which planning achieves an optimum balance between directly provided and purchased services. It considers how well partners monitor and review the quality of commissioned services in partnership with providers and people using services.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationApproach to commissioning services is based upon a comprehensive strategic needs assessment and the key priorities outlined in strategic plans. This is analysed and updated to reflect current and future needs. Service provision is based on a mixed economy approach that demonstrates a rationale for achieving an appropriate balance between direct provision and purchased services, universal, targeted and specialist services. There is a shift in focus to early intervention and prevention services to ease future demands on services.

Approaches to developing a shared, strategic approach to commissioning are at an early stage. Commissioning is not informed by a comprehensive understanding of need and we are not well enough informed about resources and capacity. There is limited evidence of a rationale to inform the mixed economy of provision.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWeusethestrategicapproachtocommissioning developed in partnership with Community Justice Scotland and have developed commissioning standards and guidelines for our local area. As our partnership matures there is increased joint commissioning of services. Stakeholder contribution and involvement and, in particular, third sector partners, is at the heart of our approaches to developing strategic commissioning. Close working with people who use services to inform the commissioning of services is embedded.

Approaches to commissioning are inconsistent and provide limited assurance of competitive neutrality among providers in the public, voluntary and independent sector. There is limited evidence of intentions to develop jointly funded commissioned services. There is a lack of contribution and involvement of stakeholders or people who use services to inform future commissioning of services.

Weensurethatcommissionedservicesaredeliveredefficientlyandeffectively.Wehave high expectations about the quality of services we commission and about achieving the standards necessary to meet the needs of people involved in, or affected bycrime.Wehaverobustmonitoringand reviewing systems in place to ensure highqualityservicesareinplace.WeimplementtheOPIFramework,particularlythe 5-step approach to evaluation, or locally determine approaches to ensure sound evaluation of services. These are informedbyarobustevidencebase.Weseek out the views of people who use services to help inform future intentions for commissioning.

Services are commissioned to meet gaps in service, or contracts are renewed without athoroughreviewofoverallneed.Robustmonitoring and reviewing systems or sound evidence are not in place to best inform the commissioning of services. There is a lack of a structured approach to inform this activity. There are limited examples of harnessing the views of people who use services to inform future commissioning plans.


8.3 Securing improvement through self-evaluation

Themes

• Howeffectiveisourplanningandco-ordinationofself-evaluation?

• Towhatextentareweinvolvingpeoplewhohavecommittedoffences,victimsandfamilies?

• Howsuccessfulareweatsecuringcontinuousimprovement?

Key features

This indicator relates to how well self-evaluation is planned and co-ordinated. It considers the extent to which self-evaluation involves and takes account of the experiences of people with previous convictions and those affected by crime. It looks at the effectiveness of self-evaluation in leading to improvements.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWearecommittedtodeliveringexcellenceincommunityjustice.Wehaveashared approach to self-evaluation and improvement guided by relevant and accreditedframeworks.Wejointlyreviewthe quality of services and challenge each other to strive for better results. Performancereportinginformationisused effectively to identify priority areas for self-evaluation activity and identify key priorities.Weplanandco-ordinatesingleagency and joint self-evaluation activity basedonmanageablepriorities.Robustevidence and auditing systems are in place to support valid self-evaluation.

Wearecontentforservicestomeetminimumstandards.Wedonotplanor co-ordinate self-evaluation activity together and are not yet able to identify priorityareasforself-evaluation.Ourpartnership lacks the maturity to be able to challenge each other to be more successful.Wedonotknowourselveswellenough to know what we do well and how toimprove.Performancemanagementinformation is of limited value and provides little robust evidence.

Staff, people who use services and stakeholders are involved as an integral part of self-evaluation processes. Innovative approaches are in place to gather views and involve others in self-evaluation and there are established approaches to do this. Staff are encouraged to undertake self-evaluation of their work and are supported to do this. Mechanisms are in place to provide feedback on how involvement influences self-evaluation.

Weseektheviewsofthoseusingservicesbut do not do this systematically, or use the evidence gathered well enough as part of self-evaluation. There is limited involvement or awareness of self-evaluation by staff.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationSelf-evaluation focuses strongly on improvingoutcomes.Resultsofself-evaluation are used to identify key priorities and these are communicated clearly and acted upon. Staff understand what they need to do to improve the quality of theirwork.Wearesuccessfullyachievingnotable and tangible improvements as a resultofself-evaluation.Wearebuildingthe capacity of staff to secure change and improvement through self-evaluation.

Wecandemonstrateafewimprovementsin the quality of processes and systems, but not improvement in wellbeing or outcomes for people who have committed offences, their families, victims and those affected by crime. Self-evaluation continually identifies the same areas for improvement.Wemakeplanstoimprovebut these are largely ineffective. Staff remain unconvinced of the benefit of self-evaluation in securing improvement.


How good is our leadership?

9. Leadership and direction

9.1 Vision, values and aims

Themes

• Howstrongisourcoherenceofvision,valuesandaims?

• Howwellarewesharingandsustainingthevision?

• Towhatextentareweensuringequalityandinclusion?

Key features

This indicator relates to how well leaders work together to deliver the best possible outcomes for people with convictions and those affected by crime through the shared national vision for community justice that is underpinned by the key principles of the national strategy. It also considers the shared local vision by partners that ensures a local perspective to community justice. It considers the extent to which the vision is owned by staff and drives the planning and delivery of services. It focuses on how effective the vision is in promoting equality and inclusion.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWeshareanambitiouslocalobjectivethataligns to the Scottish Government vision forcommunityjustice.Wearecommittedto the approach to deliver community justice in Scotland outlined in the national strategyandOPIFramework.Strongandclear links are evident between our vision for community justice and community justice outcome improvement plans, local outcome improvement plans and joint operational plans and policies.

Ourlocalintentionforcommunityjusticedoes not focus sufficiently on outcomes and lacks collective ownership. The separate aims of partners are reflected in the community justice outcome improvement plans but we have yet to reach agreement about shared aims which is getting in the way of developments. Linksbetweenourvisionforcommunityjustice, community justice outcome improvement plans and local outcome improvement plans are not clear.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationThere is involvement of a wide range of staff, stakeholders and people who have committed offences, their families and victims in developing the local vision for community justice. There is collective ownership of ambition and aspirations. This is revisited at regular periods to reinforce the national and local vision and values.Weshareacommonpurposeandhigh expectations.

Ourvisionhaslimitedrelevancetocommunity justice work and lacks ambition. There are too few opportunities for staff, stakeholders, people who have committed offences, their families and victims to be involved in developing the vision. The vision is seldom referred to and infrequently used in our joint purpose or planning.

Vision, values and aims set out clear expectations for promoting equality and inclusion. This is reflected in all relevant policiesandplans.Weensurestaffareembedding equality and inclusion in their work.

Werecognisetheimportanceofequalityand inclusion but it is not reflected clearly enough in our policies and plans. Staff are committed to embedding equality and inclusion in their work, but it is not always evident in practice.


9.2 Leadership of strategy and direction

Themes

• Howeffectiveisourcollaborativeleadership?

• Howeffectiveareweatprioritisingintegrationandeffectiveness?

• Howeffectiveareweatbalancingtransitionalchangeandstability?

Key features

This indicator focuses on collaborative leadership to plan and deliver on the model for community justice that ensures all partners fulfil their role and responsibility to the maximum. It considers how well leaders are prioritising national and local priorities. It looks at how well leaders are building and sustaining services that deliver positive outcomes and, at the same time, secure ongoing improvement through partnership working.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWehaveaclearandcoherentcommunityjustice outcome improvement plan that includes joint and integrated services and involves all relevant partners. This ensures accountability and responsibility for future direction of services. There is a clear and coherent approach between all of our statutory partners and the third sector on the development of current andfutureservices.Wemonitorsuccessand effectiveness together and prioritise successes for delivering and sustaining measurable outcomes.

Ourcommunityjusticeoutcomeimprovement plan lacks clarity and focus and cohesive partner involvement. Accountability for leading and directing work does not represent our full range of partners.Relationshipsbetweenstatutorypartners and third sector partners are underdeveloped.Wehavenotyetachievedlevels of trust that allow for quick and solid decision making. This undermines our approaches to drive improvement and change.

Wearesuccessfullyleadinganddirectingresources to prevention and early intervention.Leadershipiscollaborativeand works effectively to reduce demands on higher level, specialist services. Collaborative leadership is in place to drive national strategy and vision.

Wehavenocoherentstrategicapproachfor prevention and early intervention. There is a lack of emphasis on the gains to be made from reducing levels of higher level, specialistservices.Ourleadershipandinterventions are often reactive and driven by crisis.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWecandemonstratesoundanalysisandrationale on what needs to change and whatneedstoremain.Westeerservicessuccessfully through challenges associated with change and sustain what is working well.Wehavesuccessfullyachievedfullimplementation of the community justice model.

Ouranalysisofrisksandbenefitsofchangeislimited.Ourfocusonoutcomesgetslostwhen faced with difficult decisions about reducingcosts.Ourleadershipisfocusedon making changes within individual services, rather than change through integratedandjointapproaches.Progressand pace to full implementation of the community justice model has been slow.


9.3 Leadership of people

Themes

• Towhatextentarewedevelopingleadershipcapacity?

• Towhatextentarewebuildingandsustainingrelationships?

• Towhatextentarewepromotingteamwork?

Key features

This indicator relates to the effectiveness of leaders in building capacity for leadership at all levels. It includes the development of a supportive working environment and positive working relationships within and across services. It focuses on how well team working is promoted to achieve high levels of performance.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationWecandemonstrateveryeffectiveleadershipskillsinmotivatingothers.Wehave a culture of collaborative working, with management teams working closely witheachother.Wehaveasharedunderstanding of the role all staff have to play in delivering high quality services. Staff are confident in exercising their initiative and adopting lead roles.

Ourleadershipisunabletoexecutetheskillsrequiredtomotivateothers.Weunderstand the importance of effective working relationships but are unable to be successful in gaining sufficient collaborative working. There is confusion in the different roles staff undertake and who is leading what. There is a lack of ownership of important initiatives.

Wehavehighlyvisibleleadershipandpersonal profiles with staff. Effective methods to communicate with staff are in place.Weareaccessibleandresponsiveand held in high regard by stakeholders. Wepromotepositiveworkingrelationshipsand a supportive working environment.

Wehavelimiteddirectcontactwithstaff.Methods of communication fail to engage orenergisestaff.Weareviewedasdistantandresistanttochallenge.Wehavenotdone enough to promote positive working relationships.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWeexemplifythehighperformanceexpected from staff in delivering high quality services through strong team work. Wepromoteanethosofteamworkandprofessional collaboration at all levels. Staff understand the benefits of multi-agency working and demonstrate this in their own practice.Werecogniseachievementsandcelebrate successes.

Werecognisetheimportanceofteamworkbut have not done enough to promote this to affect positive collaborative working. Teamwork often lacks focus and has limited impact on improving outcomes. Achievements and successes within teams are rarely recognised or praised.


9.4 Leadership of improvement and change

Themes

• Towhatextentarewecontinuouslyimproving?

• Towhatextentarewelearningforchange?

• Howeffectiveisourtransformationalchange?

Key features

This indicator relates to the commitment and effectiveness of leaders in striving for excellence in the quality of services for people with convictions, their families, victims and communities. It considers the extent to which learning opportunities are explored and used as a catalyst to effect change. It focuses on the ability and success of leaders in taking a whole systems approach to redesigning services and achieving significant improvements in outcomes through step change.

Very good illustration Weak illustrationThere is a commitment and focus on improvingthequalityofservices.Weconstantly explore new ways of driving up the capacity for improvement through self-evaluation. There are high levels of awareness regarding performance. Weconscientiouslyevaluatewhetherchanges made are delivering the required results. Success is a catalyst for further improvement.

There is insufficient focus on improving services. Self-evaluation is of limited value in helping us know how well we are performing. Approaches to improvement are not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate impactofplannedimprovements.Weareslow to take corrective action.

Weroutinelyidentifygoodpracticeinjointplanning,commissioningandworking.Weempower staff to be creative together and are highly motivated to learn from others. Weareconfidenttoadaptandembedpractice from elsewhere to meet needs andimprovequality.Weexplorenewwaysof working through applying findings from reviews, research and scrutiny.

There is awareness of good practice in individual services, but not through integratedworking.Wearepooratidentifying and communicating successes and continue to do what has always been done.Wedonotconsiderhowthismightbe done better, even when outcomes are notpositive.Wehavesuccessfulbuttimelimitedinitiatives.Werarelylookoutsideto learn from elsewhere and learning from elsewhere is not utilised or embedded locally.


Very good illustration Weak illustrationWeuseprovenmodelsandpromoteevidence based approaches to change management.Weempowerstafftobe creative and innovative and are able to demonstrate breaking down of silo working.Wecontinuallychallengeourselves about traditional approaches of deliveryandhowtoworkdifferently.Weapply outcome focused models towards service redesign. There are notable leaps forward and a strong pace of change.

Changes made absorb a lot of effort and time but result in limited improvement or progress. Staff are not supported to be creative or innovative. Silo working continues without efforts to adjust for the better. There is no joint approach to successfully delivering change, with the primary focus on the need to make financial savings rather than improving services. The rationale for change is not communicated well and the pace of change is slow.


10. What is our capacity for improvement?

Global judgement based on an evaluation of the model of quality indicators

Ourjudgementaboutthecapacityforimprovementhingesontheconfidencewehaveinrelation to important levers for improvement. It is based firmly on the extent to which we can reliably demonstrate the following.

• Improvementinthelifechancesandoutcomesofthosewithlivedexperienceofcommunityjustice.

• Equalityofaccesstoservicesandqualityinterventionstosupportdesistance.

• Effectiveleadershipandmanagement.

This high level question requires us to come to a global judgement and overall statement about the capacity for continued improvement which is based on evidence and evaluations across this guide of quality indicators.

Weneedtotakeaccountofimportantchangesandcontextualissueswhichmightinfluencethisjudgement.Wealsoneedtotakeaccountofourindividualandcollectiveability to respond to change and be creative and innovative in the pursuit of excellence.

The level of confidence we reach may be different for each of the above and may includesomequalificationsorreservations.Forexample,wemayevaluateleadershipand management as very effective, but we know that some pivotal posts will become vacant in the near future, or there may be gaps in the evidence we have to support firm conclusions.


Appendix 1

The six point scale

Level6 Excellent OutstandingorsectorleadingLevel5 VeryGood MajorstrengthsLevel4 Good ImportantstrengthswithareasforimprovementLevel3 Adequate StrengthsjustoutweighweaknessesLevel2 Weak ImportantweaknessesLevel1 Unsatisfactory Majorweaknesses

An evaluation of excellent applies to provision which is a model of its type. The experiences and outcomes for those with lived experience of community justice are of a very high quality. An evaluation of excellent represents an outstanding standard of performance which will exemplify the very best practice and will be worth disseminating beyond the area. It implies that these very high levels of performance are sustainable and will be maintained.

An evaluation of very good will apply to provision characterised by major strengths. There will be very few areas for improvement and any that do exist will not significantly diminish the experiencesofthosewithlivedexperienceofcommunityjustice.Whileanevaluationofverygood represents a high standard of performance, it is a standard that should be achieved by all. It will imply that it is fully appropriate to continue the delivery of service without significant adjustment.Howevertherewillbeanexpectationthatprofessionalswilltakeopportunitiestoimprove and strive to raise performance to excellent.

An evaluation of good will apply to performance characterised by important strengths which, taken together, clearly outweigh areas for improvement. An evaluation of good will represent a standard of performance in which the strengths have significant positive impact on those withlivedexperienceofcommunityjustice.However,thequalityofexperienceofthosewithlived experience of community justice will be diminished in some way by aspects of which improvement is required. It implies that services should seek to improve further the areas of important strengths, but take action to address the areas for improvement.

An evaluation of adequate will apply to performance characterised by strengths, which just outweigh weaknesses. It implies that those with lived experience of community justice have access to basic levels of provision. It represents a standard where strengths have a positiveimpact.However,whiletheseweaknesseswillnotbeimportantenoughtohavea substantially adverse impact, they will constrain the overall quality of outcomes and experience of those with lived experience of community justice. It will imply that services should take action to address areas of weakness while building on strengths.


An evaluation of weak will apply to performance which has some strengths but where there are important weaknesses. In general an evaluation of weak may be arrived at in a numberofcircumstances.Whiletheremaybesomestrengths,theimportantweaknesses,either individually or collectively, are sufficient to diminish the experience of those with lived experience of community justice in substantial ways. It may imply that significant need, wellbeing and risk are not met. It will imply the need for structured and planned action on the part of services involved.

An evaluation of unsatisfactory will apply when there are major weaknesses in performance in critical aspects which require immediate remedial action. The outcomes and experiences of those with lived experience of community justice will be at risk in significant respects. In almost all cases, staff will require support from senior managers in planning and carrying out the necessary actions to effect improvement. Urgent action will be required across services to ensure that those with lived experience of community justice have their needs and wellbeing improved.


Appendix 2

Terms and definitions

Outcomesarethetangiblebenefitsachievedforanindividualastheresultofaction.Beingable to gather tangible outcome evidence represents a strong ability to demonstrate the positive difference being made. The ability to demonstrate outcomes requires clear targets to be in place that allow you to measure achievement. A good way to evidence outcomes is to set realistic targets and then demonstrate how an improvement has been achieved by using trends.

Tangible results are outcomes that you are able to see and are measurable. They are the results that you are able to see making a real positive difference in an individual’s life.

Trend information demonstrates year on year a pattern of results against an agreed measure. EFQMstatesthattoestablishatrend,theinformationneedstocoveracontinuousperiodofthreeyearsormore.Therearepositiveandnegativetrends.Positivetrendsoverasustainedperiod of time can be a good indicator of achieving and being able to demonstrate good outcomes.

Impact is different from outcomes as it is more linked to experiences and the emotive aspect of how something felt. Impact is unlikely to be demonstrated or evidenced in the same way as outcomes but they are inextricably linked. Impact is best connected to the perception an individual or group has about their experience, how they felt and how this made a difference to them.

Key processes are best described as the mechanisms of operational practice. They are often the way things get done and the systems that are in place to help achieve this. These can be anything from referral systems and how people access services, right through to assessment and how interventions are accessed and received.

The community justice pathway is the journey that an individual is on through community justice, from the first point of contact they have with any services right the way through to their end point experience. The pathway considers all aspects the individual will encounter when they are involved with all aspects of community justice.

People who have committed offences may have previous convictions or they may not yet have been convicted.

People with lived experience of community justice are those individuals who have an experience of the community justice pathway.


Whentheguidereferstofamilies, this relates to the families of those who have lived experience of community justice.

Whenwerefertotransitions this applies to any period or stage when an individual may be moving between different support services in their community justice pathway. This can be for a range of reasons but will be primarily in relation to type of disposal, sentence orage.Forexample,ayoungpersonmovingbetweenchildren’sservicesoryouthjusticeservices to adult services or an individual preparing for release from prison back into the community.Periodsoftransitionthatarealsosignificantastheymayimpactonthesuccessofanindividual’sjourneyshouldbeconsidered.Forexample,whensomeonemovesfromresidential detox to their own tenancy, or starts a new job after a significant period of not working.

Bystakeholder and others we mean those who are not statutory partners but will have a role or involvement in community justice and will be able to contribute in some way. This could include those with lived experience of community justice, families, third sector, victim support services, local businesses or enterprises and communities

Whenwerefertostaff in the guide we mean all staff who are involved in the delivery of communityjusticeinsomecapacity.Werealisethismaybeamoreactiveroleforsomerather than others who may also carry other non-community justice responsibilities. This includes staff at all levels, from frontline service delivery to senior managers, as each has a significant and important role to play.

The term support is used to mean the direct verbal and emotional care received as well as direct support service provision.

Withincommunityjusticeprevention and early intervention refers to secondary prevention whicharelikelytobetargetedatmorehighriskgroupsorareas.Howeverprimarypreventionand early intervention is crucial in making a real difference at the earliest possible stage and is a crucial consideration in striving for excellence.

The 5-step approach to evaluation is an approach that enables service providers and funders to evaluate their service. The Scottish Government has published two evaluation packs that can be used within community justice.

HeadquartersCare InspectorateCompass House11 Riverside DriveDundeeDD1 4NYTel: 01382 207100Fax: 01382 207289

This publication is available in other formats and other languages on request.

Tha am foillseachadh seo ri fhaighinn ann an cruthannan is cànain eile manithear iarrtas.

© Care Inspectorate 2016Published by: Communications

COMMS-1116-202

Website: www.careinspectorate.comEmail: [email protected] Inspectorate Enquiries: 0345 600 9527

a guide to self-evaluation for community justice in scotland · 2016-12-07 · 6 a guide to...

Documents